|Anti-Spamming Laws? Businesses Want Them, Consumer Groups Don't|
|Subject||Price Ceilings and its Effect on the Market|
|Topic||Market Failure, Regulation, and Public Choice|
|Key Words||Regulation, Lobbying, Costs, Opportunity Cost.|
New bills being proposed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would strictly limit the ability of firms to send spam email. These regulations are being praised by firms, especially because such regulations would penalize those who send out deceptive email. Businesses believe that such attempts to deceive the public give spam email - just another form of telemarketing in their eyes - a bad name.
Consumer groups, who favor much tougher legislation, fear that it doesn't
go far enough, and could potentially create even more spam. While most
people agree on the need to regulate spam email, citing a Ferris Research
study indicating that spam email costs $10 billion annually in lost worker
productivity, lost bandwidth, and technical support costs, no one can
agree on how far the legislation should go.
(Updated August 27, 2003)
|Source||Yochi J. Dreazan. "Why Some Big Spammers Back Spam-Control Laws." The Wall Street Journal. July 18, 2003.|
Return to the Market Failure, Regulation,
and Public Choice Index
©1998-2003 South-Western. All Rights Reserved webmaster | DISCLAIMER